Microsoft seems to use such generic names for their core products that it seems like it must be or have been part of a deliberate strategy. It is so common that I think it may have originated as a way to overawe some business customer or junior college striver -- who vaguely knows that SQL servers exist -- that SQL servers are Microsoft-specific products. Same with mail exchange server.

Namely:

SQL Server (most general term possible, despite which they claim a trademark)

Windows (the generic term used with windowing applications since their invention)

Office (if you are inclined to protest that it's really Microsoft Office, go to the product splash page and look for the word 'microsoft')

Has anyone ever come across a discussion of this from someone involved in the early naming decisions or marketing, or have any knowledge if this is in fact a pattern intended to associate in the public's mind core general technologies with Microsoft products (while stretching the outermost limits of trademarkability)?

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2

I wonder if they had this in mind when they named Internet Explorer? That name is not used generically but maybe they hoped it would be.
–
finnwSep 9 '10 at 9:37

11

@finnw well, for low-end user, the little-blue-'e'-icon is "the internet" so I think Microsoft got it right in a way
–
Federico CullocaSep 9 '10 at 9:45

@Roger Pate: annoyingly (to me anyway) the default browser for Windows XP is labelled as "Internet" rather than "Web". But then, I'm a die hard "The web is NOT the Internet" type.
–
Matt EllenSep 19 '10 at 16:55

2

A similar tendency in the Perl community is to name libraries by what they do -- CGI::Application, Text::CSV, etc.
–
Sean McMillanAug 11 '11 at 14:06

11 Answers
11

The practice dates back to the 80s when Rowland Hanson was the head of marketing at Microsoft. He devised the naming practice of putting Microsoft in front of a generic word that described the function of the application. This was done as a way to immediately convey what an application was for as well as a way to work Microsoft into the name.

So Microsoft becomes synonymous with word processing (MS Word), GUIs (windows), SQL etc
They are subconsciously the obvious choice, you have to make a conscious decision to trust WibbleBlah for your new word processor over whatever Microsoft make.

It's not new with Microsoft. Let's go back to the days when IBM ruled the earth.

The most obvious nowadays is the Personal Computer, along with the Personal Computer Disk Operating System.

To go back in time, consider one of their earlier minicomputers, the System/36 that primarily ran programs written in Report Program Generator (RPG, anyway). The IBM 360 was a perfectly good name for a computer in those days, but it came (originally, anyway) with Basic Operating System, Tape Operating System, Disk Operating System, or Operating System (which everybody wound up using after a while). Many programs were written in Basic Assembly Language and run with Job Control Language. IBM was also active in computer languages, promoting such languages as Programming Language One and A Programming Language. (Some of these may be more familiar as acronyms.)

I don't know if this is necessarily a characteristic of a market-dominating company, but it sure looks like it (for a sample size of two).

Depends, if you are trying to lure iPad developers perhaps. if you are trying to convince your bosses at the bank not to use "Microsoft Foundation Classes" for the next project then "Windows Presentation Foundation" is a much easier sell
–
Martin BeckettSep 19 '10 at 16:53

I agreed that Avalon sounded much cooler, but I doubt that this is the reason for drop in enthusiasm - many people may have move to Silverlight, since it seems to have more of Microsoft's attention, or other platforms.
–
JBRWilkinsonOct 14 '10 at 11:33

Microsoft upper management is very much run by MBA types which means names are probably analysed and manipulated so much that only a generic name can come out the other side. Just being a 'cool name' isn't enough. I think Apple go by feel a lot more, and then just do what Steve says.

Whichever word you use to describe your product, you considered the authority on that product or service. Generic terms are used more frequently and have a distinct advantage to anyone who can be positively associated with that word.

As a reminder, Microsoft is short for "micro-computer software". Isn't that as generic as you can get?